Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 30, 2026

Multimodality Diagnosis of Mesenteric Ischemia
Published on: July 21, 2023
Open Mesenteric Interventions Are Equally Safe as Endovascular Interventions and Offer Better Midterm Patency for
Shipra Arya1, Stephanie Kingman2, Jordan P Knepper3
1Division of Vascular Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; Surgical Service Line, Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, GA.
Background:
Endovascular (EV) techniques are being advocated as the preferred method for mesenteric interventions because of their safety profile. However, midterm and long-term results are thought to be inferior to open interventions. We sought to compare our institutional experience with treatment of acute and chronic mesenteric ischemia (AMI and CMI, respectively) using EV and open techniques.
Methods:
The medical records of open and EV mesenteric procedures performed at a single center were queried from 2002 to 2012. Demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data were extracted and analyzed.
Results:
Thirty-eight patients underwent EV mesenteric interventions, whereas 77 patients underwent open revascularization. The demographic and perioperative characteristics for patients were similar. Most EV procedures (89.2%) comprised stenting, whereas open procedures included 25 (32.1%) antegrade bypasses, 38 (48.7%) retrograde bypasses, 8 (10.3%) thromboembolectomies, and 7 (9%) transaortic endarterectomies. Postoperative complications, overall 30-day morbidity and mortality were not significantly different in the open and EV groups for AMI or CMI. Thirty-day mortality in AMI (n = 34) was 38.2% (EV: 45.5% vs. open: 34.8%; P = nonsignificant). There was no mortality in either group for CMI patients. Mean follow-up was much longer for the open procedures (34.9 vs. 12.7 months, P = 0.004). Primary and secondary patency rates were better for open revascularization for CMI patients.
Conclusions:
Open revascularizations are equally safe as EV interventions for AMI and CMI. Patency of open revascularization for CMI is better than EV procedures at midterm follow-up.
Insights
Endovascular and open mesenteric interventions show similar safety for acute and chronic mesenteric ischemia. However, open revascularization offers better midterm patency for chronic mesenteric ischemia.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Radiology
Background:
- Endovascular (EV) techniques are increasingly favored for mesenteric interventions due to perceived safety.
- Concerns exist regarding the midterm and long-term efficacy of EV compared to open surgical approaches.
- This study compares institutional outcomes of EV and open techniques for mesenteric ischemia.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the safety and efficacy of endovascular (EV) versus open revascularization for acute (AMI) and chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI).
- To evaluate perioperative outcomes, complications, and long-term patency rates for both treatment modalities.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of medical records from 2002-2012 at a single institution.
- Inclusion of patients who underwent either open or EV mesenteric procedures.
- Extraction and analysis of demographic, perioperative, and follow-up data.
Main Results:
- 38 patients underwent EV interventions, and 77 underwent open revascularization; demographic and perioperative characteristics were similar.
- No significant differences in postoperative complications, 30-day morbidity, or mortality were observed between EV and open groups for AMI or CMI.
- While 30-day mortality for AMI was comparable (EV 45.5% vs. open 34.8%), no mortality occurred in CMI patients.
- Mean follow-up was longer for open procedures (34.9 vs. 12.7 months).
- Primary and secondary patency rates were superior for open revascularization in CMI patients.
Conclusions:
- Open revascularization is as safe as EV interventions for both acute and chronic mesenteric ischemia.
- Open revascularization demonstrates superior midterm patency rates compared to EV procedures for chronic mesenteric ischemia.
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
Aneurysm IV: Nursing Management
